If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And also modified BSD license which is not open source (http://opensource.org/osd).
GPLv2 with modifications is not compatible with GPLv2. If kernel uses GPLv2 with modifications, it violates GPLv2.

The GPLv2 is just a template LightBit, you can change or modify it as much as you want as long as you specify "Hey, this isnt stock GPLv2" which both this code drop and the kernel do. Also the BSD license is an open source license, its just not a Free-Open source license-- hence the difference between OSS and FOSS.

The GPLv2 is just a template LightBit, you can change or modify it as much as you want as long as you specify "Hey, this isnt stock GPLv2" which both this code drop and the kernel do. Also the BSD license is an open source license, its just not a Free-Open source license-- hence the difference between OSS and FOSS.

Yes, you can modify GPLv2, but it won't be compatible with original GPLv2.

Modified! BSD license

* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
* provided that the following conditions are met:
* 1. The materials contained herein are unmodified and are used
* unmodified.

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

Correction, BSD is not even Open source, it's free to close. so it's neither OSS or FOSS. Others say it's more like public domain but I say it's proto-proprietary software and I just can't understand why the FSF and stallman classify it as free software.

Public domain would probably be the best way to put it-- "Here's code, do whatever the hell you want with it, I dont care." And they probably classify it as freesoftware because of the above-- do whatever the hell you want with it. it is the MOST unrestricted license there is.

Correction, BSD is not even Open source, it's free to close. so it's neither OSS or FOSS. Others say it's more like public domain but I say it's proto-proprietary software and I just can't understand why the FSF and stallman classify it as free software.

So you're saying that Stallman doesn't go far enough?
Are you saying that he was wrong to advocate that Ogg Vorbis was released under a permissive BSD-like license to increase marketshare as opposed to other patent laden and closed standards like MPEG, do you think he was wrong in that regard?
Perhaps you don't understand him because he has a brain and you do not.

I'm afraid so, Ogg Vorbis should have been GPLed to remove the possibly of making proprietary extensions it. And I don't see how making it free to close would gain market share.

Companies freak out about the GPL because of mental taint. If you work on GPL code and also work on closed code, could your entire existence be considered a "Derived work" of the GPL software because you looked at it and maybe gained an idea that you later incorporated into the closed code? If that IS a derived work, then everything you ever worked on after looking at the GPL code would have to be open sourced.*

GPL's biggest failure is that parts of it, and the terminology in it, can be very... vague or non-specific. And when you have vague terms of use, lawyers freak. BSD doesnt have that issue. "Heres code, do whatever the hell you want with it."

I'm afraid so, Ogg Vorbis should have been GPLed to remove the possibly of making proprietary extensions it. And I don't see how making it free to close would gain market share.

Keeping these replies separate because they are drastically different....

Its really cute and...endearing that you and a few others are GPL purists and idealists, and I'm not saying idealism is bad-- I'm an idealist in some things as well, but....welcome to the real world CthuIhux, welcome to reality. Closed source software is gonna exist, proprietary extensions are gonna exist. May as well just accept it and make the most of it. GPL software is useless if no one wants to use it.

Companies freak out about the GPL because of mental taint. If you work on GPL code and also work on closed code, could your entire existence be considered a "Derived work" of the GPL software because you looked at it and maybe gained an idea that you later incorporated into the closed code? If that IS a derived work, then everything you ever worked on after looking at the GPL code would have to be open sourced.*

GPL's biggest failure is that parts of it, and the terminology in it, can be very... vague or non-specific. And when you have vague terms of use, lawyers freak. BSD doesnt have that issue. "Heres code, do whatever the hell you want with it."

*Its never been decided in court, until it is, companies will worry.

That isnt my understanding at all... You can't copyright ideas, you can only copyright implementations. You could write something, then I could write something else that does exactly the same thing in a different way, and they could both be under a different copyright as long as none of your code is used in my implementation.

EDIT: I think it is very clear that you can't copyright a concept of something. You can only copyright the implementation of something.

That isnt my understanding at all... You can't copyright ideas, you can only copyright implementations. You could write something, then I could write something else that does exactly the same thing in a different way, and they could both be under a different copyright as long as none of your code is used in my implementation.

EDIT: I think it is very clear that you can't copyright a concept of something. You can only copyright the implementation of something.